Challenges to an election based on a candidate's disqualification existing at the time of nomination must exclusively be decided through an election petition before a competent tribunal. Administrative authorities lack jurisdiction to unilaterally disqualify representatives on pre-existing grounds after the election result has been officially declared.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department who appears for the said Department and Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the District Administration. I have also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the private respondents and Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Assam State Election Commission.

2. It is contended before this Court by the learned counsels for the respondents that the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is covered by the decision rendered in the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha Khatun vs. State of Assam and 5 Others in WP(C) No. 7351/2025, reported in 2026:GAU-AS:2734.

3. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that the present batch of writ petitions can be divided into two sets. One set of writ petitions pertains to inaction on the part of the concerned District Commissioner in taking action pursuant to information provided by way of representations that the returned candidate cannot be permitted to remain as a Member of the concerned Panchayat as he/she was disqualified under Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules of 1995'). This set of writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as 'the first set of writ petitions'.

The other set of writ petitions are filed by the returned candidates who were disqualified by the concerned District Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 111 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995. This set of writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as 'the second set of writ petitions'.

4. For deciding as to whether the issues involved in both the sets of writ petitions are covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the first set of writ petitions.

WP(C) No.5686/2025.

5. The Petitioner herein pursuant to a Notification dated 02.04.2025 issued by the Assam State Election Commission for election to various posts of Panchayat in the State of Assam submitted nomination for election to the post of Gaon Panchayat Member of 4 No. Ward under Rangauti Gaon Panchayat. The Respondent No.7 also submitted nomination for the election to the post of Gaon Panchayat Member of 4 No. Ward under Rangauti Gaon Panchayat. The election was held on 02.05.2025, and the Petitioner lost the election by a margin of two votes against the Respondent No.7. The result was declared on 11.05.2025. The Petitioner on 15.05.2025, raised objection before the District Commissioner in so far as it relates to the educational certificate of the Respondent No.7 and prayed for verification of the educational certificate of the Respondent No.7 to unearth the truth regarding the veracity of the said certificate. Thereupon, the Petitioner approached this